About your Search

20110725
20110725
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
in afghanistan. the pentagon says funds from a $2.1 billion trucking contract to get supplies to american troops were funneled to the militants. a pentagon spokesman says a new contract will be awarded and applicants will be more thoroughly vetted. >>> we have an update tonight on the u.s. government law enforcement initiative that allowed guns to fall into the hands of mexican criminals. we have an exclusive report on some of the buyers in operation fast and furious. >> it's a lot of guns. that was the first thing that came into mind. >> this attorney represents manuel acosta, the man accused of recruiting 19 straw buyers later indicted for smuggling guns to mexico. >> they walk into a store, fill out a form, they buy a couple of rifles and walk out and give it to the guy. he gives them a few hundred bucks. >> to purchase a gun every buyer fills out this form. it asks, have you ever been indicted for a felony, been charged with a crime that allows for a year in jail? are you subject to a restraining order? the gun stores forwards that to the fbi, which then approves, denies or delays the purcha
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
and afghanistan. republicans say the markets might not buy that but the same accounting tool was used in the republican budget that passed the house. jon: interesting to that the secretary of state commenting on tkphes particular spending matter. thank you. jenna: the lack of debt deal seems to be one of the factors in the stock market as wendell was talking about. the dow trading down by 60 points . it was down by over a hundred earlier. simon constable is a columnist for the "wall street journal." what is your take? we talk about the reassurance for the market? what about the reassurance for the average investor. >> most of the markets are saying whatever. but the gold market isn't. we've seen gold come up from 1500 a month ago to over 1600 now. jenna: what does that tell you. >> people don't buy golds as a good investment. you have to pay money to have it stored, buy insurance, put it in a bank, with armed guards and people are basically big thumb's down to the u.s. government when they buy gold. you shouldn't be totally reassured. that is quite a move in that sort of short period
eliminating money with the wars in be afghanistan and iraq. that's also future looking. so i'm asking you today in terms of changes to the tax code for corporations because we know there's plenty of corporations that last year ended up paying relatively little or no taxes at all. are you putting forward anything in terms of corporate tax reform that you would be willing to undo in loop loopholes today? is. >> i think we all agree tax loopholes are something we can do about, that's definitely an area we compromise on without any difficulty whatsoever. but the point is putting in a system of tax reform that is simpler, flatter, less cumbersome especially for our business owners in the cost of doing business. so this is what we're looking at. but we are definitely against any tax increases, any tax increases alone. martha: all right, so goldman sachs if they don't get $4 trillion, what happens is a plan that's short of $4 trillion in real spending cuts, they're likely to downgrade their rating on u.s. debt. what do you think about that? >> well, you know, that's unfortunately what we're face
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)